[Moderated]Gravy's witness "summary" does not reflect reality.

[Lyte Trip]

"Diving" is the word he used, and since the plane certainly lost altitude between hitting the top of the lightpoles on the bridge and hitting the base of the building (and since it couldn't get between those two points with a "level approach"), I think his description is more accurate than yours.

The "friend" is a "neighbor" of my "parents." What are you trying to imply with the quotes?

Yes, he's anonymous -- to you -- and shall remain so. He seemed pretty sincere when he said you guys are "full of $#!%" so I don't think he wants to be "interviewed" by the "citizens investigation team."

No, I can't prove he was on that highway or saw what the says he saw, but I have absolutely no reason to doubt him since his story is completely consistent with all the other witnesses and all the physical evidence. The "north side flight path" is irrelevant, since for our purposes here the important part of his story is what he didn't see: a flyover. If you choose to disbelieve him just because it makes your idiotic theory harder to sell, suit yourself. But I'd still like to hear some rational explanation for how anyone from that vantage point could have possibly missed seeing a 757 fly over the roof in my photo or mistook it for a plane on a National flight path. You previous attempt at that was, um, somewhat less than credible.

Ah OK. Anonymous hearsay=i.e. your witness does not exist.

Ok, next.

 

[T.A.M.]

He is one 8 USA Today employees who see this event actually happen. 7 of which have proven to be suspect themselves.

Suspect how? Who suspects them, and of what, and based on what? Name names of who suspects them, and specifically of what, or retract the statement.

He is at the USAToday building in Rosslyn. He also indicates that he heard the jet fly by his office in Rosslyn. This would NOT be the official NTSB flight path.

"fly by" is open for interpretation, especially as he heard it only, he did not see it. We have no idea how close, or far away from the building it was.

Does he specify whether the plane was on the North side or the South side of the Citgo?

Not relavent. We are debating which witnesses did or did not see the plane hit the pentagon. I don't care if the plane came from under the ground, or fell out of the sky.

The biggest problem is WHY DIDN'T HE SEE THE "SECOND" JET/PLANE FLY AWAY AFTER SHADOWING/CHASING THE PLANE?????

I dunno, maybe he turned away, maybe he blinked, maybe he was using the phone.

Here is an actual view of the pentagon from his POV with a camera zoom:

[qimg]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/mary_ann_owens2.jpg[/qimg]

Sorry, it is clear he is not a genuine witness.

You are not sorry, and in the minds of most sane people, he IS a genuine witness.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

How does it make you feel Lyte, to know that someone witnessed the crash and states categorically that there was no fly-over?

I know you'll take comfort in the option of him being a false witness or just mistaken. But there has to be that little spark of uncertainty in your mind that maybe, just maybe, this man witnessed everything he says he witnessed and this does not include a flyover.

Your whole thesis is founded on the plane flying over the pentagon. There cannot be a single verifiable witness who can confirm that this did not happen.

Of course, neither you or I can verify this witness. But, there's a chance he is telling the truth.

Think about it.

None of your witnesses to the alleged north side flightpath can confirm that they saw the plane fly over the pentagon. It had to go somewhere didn't it? But you have no positive ID that it flew over. Not one of your witnesses has been able to put their hand on heart and say "I saw the plane pull up before the pentagon and I watched it fly over".

But here's a witness who states categorically that it didn't. No 'ifs' or 'buts'.

Maybe he's lying.

Maybe he's not.

Makes you think, huh?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In all this plotting of distances, locations, angles and fields of view, I hope you all (especially the attention whore) realize that no one needs to have actually seen the impact.

All we need are eyewitnesses who were able to track the aircraft up to the point where it could not have avoided impact with the Pentagon.

All we need to do is determine the very last point at which a sharp yank on the control stick would have resulted in the aircraft successfully clearing the building. For an aircraft screaming in at 500 miles per hour this point will be quite far from the actual impact.

The upshot of this is that nearly all of the 105 witnesses are effectively back in play regardless of wether they saw the final impact or not.

Owned again, Lyte.

Can you please respond to this point I made earlier, Lyte?

 

[Lyte Trip]

Skies are usually not located 50ft off the ground.

When it pulled up and into the air, people on the other side ) *might* have seen in the sky or on the 395 side in would have been in the sky. Besides some witnesses have it going to the side of the building and not going directly in.

Sharp turn? I thought this thing was going to fly away from the explosion?

This thing more than likely 'cranked and banked' out of there. That is why there are reports of a "light white jet circling the helipad of the Pentagon", like the account from the ANC worker who "did not want to be interviewed"...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Another Arlington worker who declined to be interviewed in front of the media told a story that the military historians had not heard in the 244 interviews they had conducted through last week. The man said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.[/FONT]

Make sure you

Edited by chillzero: 

Moderated thread

Do you seriously believe she means a few feet above the roof of the dammed thing?

By the time it went over the Pentagon it was more than a few feet.

Right, so he saw two planes? One flying directly above the other? How does that prove your story?

Flying near. That means two, not one.

So all you have going for you is the possibilty of two planes in the area. Near an airport. Well done.

Perhaps you haven't done your research on the C-130. I suggest you do. A big surprise is coming with that if you haven't done your homework. But we have already proven that the C-130 was NEVER anywhere near shadowing the plane. Let alone shadowing it all the way up until it hits the wall as Wheelhouse asserts. We interviewed him you know? The C-130 pilot said:


"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport.(That means he was far away)

Again you illustrate our point. It was in an area where planes take off and flyover the Pentagon all the time.

We just interviewed a witness who saw it come over the "middle of the Navy Annex"(north side flight path) who thought that was normal for Reagan, so imagine when a fireball gets your attention from across the river or on 395 or from an Army Navy drive highrise. Is a plane speeding up and away that may have circled around out of the view of people in the immediate area going to be so noticeable? And if it is wouldn't a second plane/second jet story confuse who the whole show?

Face it. You are going nowhere with this. You are going nowhere. And all this is coming to nothing. All you have in the future is a few minutes at a tin-foil conference with a bunch of spotty nerds. Not the pulitzer prize. Dylan knows it. Aldo knows it. We know it.



You know it.

You are so emotional about and dedicate an extraordinary amount of time on something that is "coming to nothing".

 

[SOMERLED]

So now the damage to the generator was staged as well??

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could you please prove that. Could you please prove that a generator that was in front of many people who were there since early morning was damaged beforehand? Could you please provide your proof that shows some people damaged the generators in advance with no one noticing?

Or can you show how the blast managed to blow the generators inwards.

PLEASE LIST ALL THE WITNESSES WHO SAW THE PLANE FLY OVER.

PLEASE LIST ALL THE WITNESSES WHO SAY THIS PLANTED EVIDENCE.


I can't stop laughing at your claims of people ignoring your investigation when all your investigation is a trip to ignoring reality and the evidence. And again, ALL of it, and I mean ALL of it is SOLELY based on a couple of eyewitnesses, which is a completely unreliable. YOU know it, WE know it.

This is why you are not taken seriously by any legitimate media. You WISH you were, but you're not. So you have to act like a little bully on chat forums where people have no choice BUT to listen to your baseless claims and where you can do little song and dances to play games and feel like you are actually making a legitimate case.

BUT HERE"S YOUR CASE:

You have 3 people who THINK they saw the plane fly on the north side.

That's IT. No matter how much you wish it were more, that's IT. You know if so you keep on putting on a little pony show and act all tough in hopes that no one wikll notice that's all you have.

If you want staged stuff, look no further than this webpage.
I particularly like the two lampoles no. 2. One still standing and the second tossed over the guardrail on the grass bank. Explain that away please, then you can start on the rest of the fakes.
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

 

[Qubit]

You're lying again. There is a question about it. As the plane did not come in on the North side of the Citgo station, there is necessarily a question about it.

I think Lyte doesn't understand the concept of small sample size and distribution. If he did, he would realize that taking a small fraction (4 people) of the overall number of people who witnessed the event will skew results. If he actually asked everyone who witnessed the even to draw the flight path, he would probably see most of the paths clustered around the official flight path. Of course, he thinks they should all draw same exact path that mirrors the official flight path. In fact, he fails to recognize none of the people he interviewed drew a path that represents Lyte's supposed flight path.

 

[jaydeehess]

Geez, I go away for the weekend and Lyte reappears to start what is now an 8 page thread.

I have only read the first page so far but for my 2 cents worth.

Lyte, since the flyover is your puppy why did you fail utterly to ask any of the witnesses that you did bother to interview whether they believed that the plane impacted a lower or an upper floor of the Pentagon?

Please compile a list of all the people who state that the plane hit an upper floor of the Pentagon. That would be of the people who's statements we have from other sources and of those you interviewed.
But wait, there's more. Please also include a list of all the people who say the plane impacted a lower floor or the ground floor. That would be of the people who's statements we have from other sources and of those you interviewed.

Only those who say it impacted an upper floor could possibly have any relevence to your pet conjecture of a flyover since we already know that absolutly no one is on record anywhere, including those you interviewed, as saying they saw the low flying jetliner pull up and over the Pentagon.

 

[A W Smith]

CIT concedes north of citgo flyover

let it be known I have asked Lyte Trip three times in this thread to produce physical evidence of a north of citgo flyover or concede. The posts have been ignored. Therefore we conclude there is no physical evidence of a north of citgo flight path and lyte concedes.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not relavent. We are debating which witnesses did or did not see the plane hit the pentagon. I don't care if the plane came from under the ground, or fell out of the sky.
TAM

I have stated before that the information in the interviews that Lyte did would be better suited to supporting a theory that the plane did not hit the Pentagon but instead flew under it.

All 4 at the Citgo stated that it hit the Pentagon. The fireball being the only evidence that Robert had that impact had taken place(note the past tense). Without exception, all witnesses that state anything about where the plane impacted the Pentagon include it hitting the lower floors. No one at all claims an upper floor impact.

If the plane flew over the building, if it had risen up before impacting and a fireball set off to mask the flyover then that fireball would have to occur when the aircraft was very close indeed to the building at which point if it were not at least 70 agl it could not miss hitting the upper floors. Again though, no one , no one at all, anywhere, states that the plane that was approaching the Pentagon performed any manouver that would have it rising to the upper levels of the Pentagon.

The sole witness who says it rose at any time is Robert who was at the time of the supposed aircraft's rising, himself running UP an embankment thus changing his own perspective on the plane.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If you want staged stuff, look no further than this webpage.
I particularly like the two lampoles no. 2. One still standing and the second tossed over the guardrail on the grass bank. Explain that away please, then you can start on the rest of the fakes.
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

Jack White? The man has been embarassed in front of the U.S. Congress (in the open hearings on the Kennedy assassination where he had to admit that he's a compositor, and has no knowledge of photogammetry), and has been owned by the Moon Hoax debunking community several times over. One of the best of those is found here: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I don't know if anyone's had any time to research his photo investigation of the Pentagon and/or WTC, yet, but I'd be pretty sure it's been taken apart somewhere, as his W/L record on his earlier "missions" is 0 for 2.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Geez, I go away for the weekend and Lyte reappears to start what is now an 8 page thread.

I have only read the first page so far but for my 2 cents worth.

Lyte, since the flyover is your puppy why did you fail utterly to ask any of the witnesses that you did bother to interview whether they believed that the plane impacted a lower or an upper floor of the Pentagon?

It is not my "puppy" and I resent the condescending rhetoric. Contrary to popular belief we did not begin our investigation with the belief in a flyover. Our assertion of the flyover is a RESULT of our investigation. All witnesses saw the plane on the north side and Robert saw it "pull up". If it pulled up AT ALL it could not have hit the building let alone the bottom two floors.

Please compile a list of all the people who state that the plane hit an upper floor of the Pentagon. That would be of the people who's statements we have from other sources and of those you interviewed.

Even the citgo witnesses could not have had a detailed view of the alleged impact. Same is the case with the route 27 witnesses.

Bottom line; VERY few people were in a position to be able to physically see the alleged impact at all let alone be able to tell with certainty how high or low the plane was as it reached the building. That is the entire point of this thread beyond exposing Gravy's inaccurate reporting.

But wait, there's more. Please also include a list of all the people who say the plane impacted a lower floor or the ground floor. That would be of the people who's statements we have from other sources and of those you interviewed.

Go ahead. List them.

Only those who say it impacted an upper floor could possibly have any relevence to your pet conjecture of a flyover since we already know that absolutly no one is on record anywhere, including those you interviewed, as saying they saw the low flying jetliner pull up and over the Pentagon.

Well this is where you are wrong because the north side claim is 100% relevant to this as is Robert's "pull-up". Why do you dismiss the north side claim?

Do you think it's possible for a plane on the north side to still hit the light poles and cause the reported damage up to the c-ring hole?

 

[Lyte Trip]

tsk tsk you just lost Robert Turcios as a north of citgo witness lyte. You spoke with his boss the manager in your little video. not with Turcios. he only relays Turcios story. Please apply the same standards to your own witnesses.

This post is a perfect example as to the lack of research that goes into verifying these witness claims.

We originally heard about Robert Turcios seeing the plane on the north side from his female manager Barbara.

We confirmed with Robert directly over the phone that this was accurate and then I returned to Arlington to conduct the interview direct with Robert and confirm or deny his claim with all the other known witnesses that were on the property.

His claim was definitively confirmed first hand on video tape with all witnesses and we have therefore proven that the plane flew on the north side of the station.

It is statistically impossible for all of them to be so drastically mistaken about this specific detail in the exact same way.

 

[Lyte Trip]

let it be known I have asked Lyte Trip three times in this thread to produce physical evidence of a north of citgo flyover or concede. The posts have been ignored. Therefore we conclude there is no physical evidence of a north of citgo flight path and lyte concedes.

Ridiculous.

This statement is beyond disingenuous and is yet another example of using a circular logical fallacy to dismiss the data we present.

We have proven that the plane flew on the north side of the station because this has been independently verified from ALL of the witnesses who were in a position to tell.

This proves that it CAN NOT be the plane that caused the physical damage and therefore that the dubious, questionable, and admittedly by the government "counter-intuitive" physical damage/evidence was caused by something else.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here we go again b implying a lack of evidence is proof of your conjecture. Once again, the eyewitness testimony is backed up by the rest of the evidence. As opposed to Lytes claims which are based only on eyewitness testimony, which is why it is not acceptable.

Gravey's witnesses just like Lytes could be right, they could be wrong, they could be inbetween. We can never really be sure. It's the combination of all the evidence that matters. Something Lyte cannot offer.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Sorry malcolm but I agree with Foolmewunz.

Jack White is a fraud.

The Bob Pugh video footage proves that White's claims of photo fakery are nonsense.

 

[Lyte Trip]

Malcolm,

I have to agree with foolmewunz on this.

Most of Jack White's claims of photo manipulation have been proven false by the Bob Pugh footage and other video footage of the scene.

 

[T.A.M.]

Lyte, it comes down to where does the majority of proof lie, and which theory based on the proof, will the majority of people believe.

By far, the majority of proof, far and away, lies on the side of the Plane hitting the Pentagon. You can choose to believe otherwise. I am telling you with certainty, if you take 10,000 people, provide them with your tape, your interviews, and then against that provide them with the mountain of evidence supporting the plane hitting the Pentagon, it is no contest...greater than 90% of the 10,000 people will not believe your take on things.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

I think Lyte doesn't understand the concept of small sample size and distribution. If he did, he would realize that taking a small fraction (4 people) of the overall number of people who witnessed the event will skew results. If he actually asked everyone who witnessed the even to draw the flight path, he would probably see most of the paths clustered around the official flight path. Of course, he thinks they should all draw same exact path that mirrors the official flight path. In fact, he fails to recognize none of the people he interviewed drew a path that represents Lyte's supposed flight path.

You've explained his erroneous methodology (assuming--improbably--that it isn't intentional deception) quite well. Lyte seizes on the outliers and ignores everything else. Most of us get the idea that if a hundred ordinary people describe an event, the descriptions will cluster around the version that best fits the known evidence. A few will veer off and stray far from the facts. These are the only ones that interest Lyte. The notion that a handful of eccentric, demonstrably wrong-headed views can refute a well-established hypothesis is a defining characteristic of charlatans. It is the difference between Lyte Trip and an honest researcher.

 

[peteweaver]

Lyte, your explaination is ridiculously complicated. How can you expect anyone who has seen photographs of the wreckage, and read eyewitness statements about witnesses seeing an airliner hit the pentagon, to believe your claims ?